Sotah 45b — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

Abaye

You have taught it:

for they disputed in such a manner regarding Shikheha, whether it is considered concealed, as it was taught:

A sheaf that he had taken hold of in order to carry it to the city, and placed it on top of another one and forgot it: the lower one is shikheha, but the upper one is not

shikheha. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: neither of them is shikheha—the lower one because it is concealed, and the upper one because it is floating.

And the Gemara explains that the members of the academy who wished to resolve from this Mishna the uncertainty concerning one species concealed among the same species,

assumed that these tannaim

both the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon

held like Rabbi Yehuda, who says: “in the field”—excluding what is concealed,

and therefore the first tanna, who said that the lower one is shikheha, did not disagree with Rabbi Shimon over whether something concealed exempts from shikheha or not, but rather:

is it not that they disagree over this: that one master,

Rabbi Shimon,

holds that one species among the same species is considered concealed, whereas the other master,

the first tanna,

holds that one species among the same species is not considered concealed,

and therefore the lower one is shikheha. Thus, the uncertainty of that one of the Sages is dependent upon a dispute among tannaim.

And we reject this:

No,

there is no proof that they disputed whether one species among the same species is considered concealed. Rather, even

if

they all

held like Rabbi Yehuda,

that something concealed exempts, it is possible to say that

everyone

would agree that also

one species among the same species is considered concealed, and here

in the case of the sheaf that he placed on top of another one,

they disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis

whether something concealed exempts from shikheha or not:

the Rabbis

the first tanna, hold

like the Rabbis,

that something concealed is liable for shikheha,

whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda

holds

like Rabbi Yehuda,

who exempts something concealed from shikheha. There is no connection between their dispute and the uncertainty concerning one species among the same species that is concealed. And likewise, one cannot prove from the fact that they exempted the upper one that one species among the same species is considered floating, for we concluded above that its exemption is because he had taken hold of it, and not because it was floating [Rashi]. And the uncertainties remain unresolved.

And we challenge: if their dispute concerning the sheaf is whether something concealed exempts or not,

why specifically

did the tanna add that he placed the upper one

on top of another one,

when

even if

he buried the lower one

in earth and in a clod, as well,

they would disagree whether it is exempt from shikheha? And we answer:

Indeed, it is so:

they disputed something concealed in every manner,

and

it was necessary to inform us that it was concealed in the same species only in order

to inform you of the power of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that even one species among the same species is considered concealed.

The Sages taught:

It is stated, “When there is found”

a slain person,

that is, one killed by a sword or the like, and this implies exclusion of

one strangled.

It also implies that specifically when he is found already

a slain person, and not convulsing,

and from what is written

“in the ground,”

it implies

“and not concealed in a heap of stones.”

And because it is written

“fallen,”

we exclude

“and not hanging from a tree.”

And from the word

“in the field”

we expound

“and not floating upon the surface of the water.” Rabbi Eliezer says: in all of them

whether convulsing, floating, concealed, or hanging,

if he was a slain person,

one killed by a sword and not strangled,

they break the neck of the heifer.

It was taught: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda said: They said to Rabbi Eliezer, “Do you not admit that if he was strangled and lying in a refuse heap,”

that he is neither floating nor hanging nor concealed, and nevertheless certainly

they do not break the neck of the heifer—therefore

we expound

“a slain person, and not one strangled”;

and if so,

here too

one should also carefully derive the other exclusions that are implied by this verse, such as

“in the ground, and not concealed in a heap of stones; fallen, and not hanging from a tree; in the field, and not floating upon the water.”

And we answer:

but Rabbi Eliezer

holds that

“a slain person” is written redundantly.

The word “a slain person” is written several times in the passage, to expound that they break the neck of the heifer specifically over one killed by a sword and not over one strangled. But he did not carefully derive the other exclusions, since it is the way of Scripture to say “fallen in the field” and the like; only “a slain person,” which is written several times, is expounded to exclude one strangled.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If he was found near the border or near a city whose majority are idolaters, and so forth.”

And we explain why they do not break the neck of the heifer over him:

for it is written, “When there is found,”

and we exclude:

“excluding what is present,”

and the city or border of the gentiles is continually frequented. [Rashi; and see the notes.]

We learned in the Mishna:

“Or to a city in which there is no court.”

And we explain: what is the reason that they do not break the neck of the heifer over a slain person found near a city in which there is no court? It is because

“I require”

the fulfillment of “and the elders of the city shall go out,”

“but there are none.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“They measure only toward a city, and so forth,”

in which there is a court.

And we are astonished:

Is this obvious? Since you taught

that if he was found near

a city in which there is no court,

they do not measure, consequently

I know that they measure only toward a city in which there is a court.

And we answer:

this teaches us

that one should not say that when he is found near a city in which there is no court they do not measure at all; rather, they always measure toward a city in which there is a court.

As it was taught: From where is it derived that if

he was found near a city in which there is no court, they set it aside and measure toward another city

in which there is a court?

The verse states: “And the elders of that city shall take,”

for seemingly the words “that city” are superfluous. It should have written: “And it shall be, the city nearest to the slain person, and its elders shall take”; “that city” was written only to say that

in any event

they measure toward a city in which there is a court.

Mishna:

If he was found

the slain person

exactly

in the precise midpoint of the distance

between two towns, both of them bring two

heifers,

that is, each city brings one heifer,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer. And Jerusalem does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken,

as we expound in the Gemara from a verse.

If his head was found

of the slain person

in one place, and his body in another place,

and the halakha is that an unattended corpse acquires its place in order to be buried there, and they disputed where they should bury him: whether

they bring the head to the body, the words of Rabbi Eliezer,

whereas

Rabbi Akiva says:

they bring

the body to the head,

and their reason is explained in the Gemara.

And they further disputed:

from where,

from which place on the body of the slain person

did they measure

the distance from the city?

Rabbi Eliezer says: from his navel.

Rabbi Akiva says

from his nose; Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: from the place where he became a slain person,

that is,

from his neck,

and the reason for the dispute is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And we inquire about it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer

who said that if he was found exactly midway, each city brings a heifer? And we explain:

he holds that it is possible to make an exact measurement.

A person is capable of measuring with complete precision, and if through measurement it is found to be exact, indeed the two cities are equally close to the slain person.

And we are not concerned that perhaps one of these is closer than the other by a distance imperceptible to a person. In such a doubt, the law is that the two towns bring a heifer jointly, and stipulate: “If our city is the closer one, your share in the heifer shall be acquired by us,” and likewise the reverse, but the measurement clarifies that there is no doubt.

And

therefore the two cities bring a heifer, for Rabbi Eliezer also holds that what is written, “the city”

nearest

means

even

several cities that are

nearest.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And Jerusalem does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken.”

And we explain the reason:

for the verse says,

“When there is found a slain person in the ground that the Lord your God gives you”

“to inherit,”

and we expound that they break the neck of the heifer only if the slain person is found in a place given for the inheritance of the tribes.

And he holds

the tanna who said that it does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken, like the one who says that

Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If his head was found in one place

and his body in another place

and so forth.”

And we inquire about it:

Over what do they disagree

concerning what Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disputed, whether they bring the head to the place of the body or the reverse?

If you say that they disagree concerning measuring,

whether they measure from the head or from the body, and each one holds that they bring the other part to the place of the part from which, according to his view, they measure, but it is impossible to say that this is what they disputed, for

from the fact that it teaches in the final clause: “From where did they measure,”

from the nose or from the navel,

by inference, the first clause is not dealing with measuring.

Rather,

Rabbi Yitzhak said,

regarding the matter of

a met mitzva acquires its place, they dispute, and this is what it says:

with regard

to burying it, it acquires its place; and where its head is found in one place and its body in another, and its body is in another place, they bring the head to the body—these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says

they bring

the body to the head. Regarding what do they dispute? One master,

Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the חלל acquires the place where the body was found, since

its body was in its place

in the place where it was killed

and fell,

whereas

the head moved

moved and rolled

and fell

in another place; therefore they must bring the head to the place of the body, which is the place that the dead man acquired for his burial.

And

the other

master,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds: the head—where it fell, it fell

and lies in the place where it was severed, and there it acquired its place for burial, whereas

it is the body that moved along,

and it does not acquire the place where it fell, since it continued moving after its death; and they bring it to the head, which fell at the time of death and acquired its place for burial.

We learned in the Mishna:

“From where would they measure.”

And we raised it:

“Regarding what do they dispute?”

What is their reason for measuring from the nose or from the navel? And we explain:

One master,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds that the principal life-force

of a person is

in his nose,

and it determines whether he is alive or a חלל; therefore they measure from it the distance from the “חלל,”

and the other master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds that the principal life-force is at his navel.

And we raised it:

“Let us say”

that this dispute is

like

the dispute of

these tannaim,

who discussed

“from where is the fetus formed?”

The first tanna said:

“From its head; and so it says, ‘From my mother’s womb You are my cutter,’”

meaning, You first formed my head,

and

we find that the head is called “my cutter,” as Scripture

says, “Cut off your crown and cast it away,” for

the meaning is: tear out the hair of your head.

Abba Shaul says:

the fetus is formed

from its navel,

and afterward

it sends out its root in every direction.

And apparently the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva resembles this dispute, for the principal part of its life is at the place from which its formation begins.

And we reject this:

“Even if you say”

that

Abba Shaul

holds like Rabbi Akiva, it is possible to distinguish, for

Abba Shaul said this only

that its beginning is at its navel

with regard to formation, for when a fetus is formed, it is formed from its middle,

and from there it sends out its root and develops,

but with regard to the life-force, everyone agrees that it is in its nose, as it is written: ‘Everything that has the breath of the spirit of life in its nose.’

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: From the place where he became a חלל—from his neck.”

And we explain:

“What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben

Yaakov? As it is written: ‘To place you upon the necks of the slain of the wicked.’”

And since a חלל is mentioned in connection with the neck, they measure from the neck of the חלל to determine its place.

Mishna:

After they measured which city was nearest to the חלל,

the elders of

the Great Court who had come from

Jerusalem were dismissed, and they went away.

The elders of that city,

which was nearest to the חלל,

bring a calf of cattle that has not been made to draw with a yoke, and a blemish does not disqualify it.

And they bring it down to a rugged stream,

a hard, rocky channel,

“rugged,” according to its plain meaning: hard;

however,

even though it is not rugged,

it is fit,

for it was not said that it must be rugged except as a mitzva, and not as an indispensable requirement. [And in the Sifrei we expound this from the end of the passage, where it is said, “And they shall break the heifer’s neck in the stream,” and it did not mention that it must be rugged.]

And they break its neck

the court

with a cleaver

like a large knife [of butchers]

from behind it,

opposite its neck.

And its place,

the place where the heifer’s neck was broken,

is forbidden for sowing and for working

on it with activities involving the soil itself forever.

And it is permitted to comb flax there and to quarry

to hew

stones there,

for these activities do not involve the soil itself.

The elders of that city wash their hands in water at the place where the heifer’s neck was broken,

and say: “Our hands did not shed this blood, and our eyes did not see.”

And the meaning is not the plain meaning of the words, for

“Could it have entered our minds”

the thought

“that the elders of the court are shedders of blood,”

so that they need to announce that they did not kill the חלל?

Rather,

when they say, “Our hands did not shed this blood,” their intention is to say

that the חלל did not come

the חלל

into our hands

before he left the city,

and we sent him away [

without food ]

and therefore he needed to rob people in order to sustain himself, and as a result they killed him.

And

when they say, “And our eyes did not see,” their intention is:

we did not

see him

setting out alone on the road without a group

and we left him [

without escort ].